Introduction by Jonathon Boulter (1)
Our next speaker is Alexander Baron; about five years ago he read about an alleged
miscarriage of justice in which an Asian was wrongfully convicted of the murder of a white
man who had racially abused and attacked him. But after investigating for himself, he was so
disgusted by what he saw that he set up a website about the case. He believes that the way the
media portrayed the murder has ramifications that extend far beyond this particular crime.
SATPAL RAM: A Case Study In "Anti-Racist" Brainwashing
Good afternoon lady (2) and gentlemen,
In February 1993, 1 interviewed the distinguished psychologist Professor Hans Eysenck, and
one of the things I put to him was that the results of some of his researches were
controversial. This was with reference to race and intelligence, in particular the well-
documented fact that blacks, ie Negroes, score consistently considerably lower in IQ testing
than whites. He replied that in this field at any rate the only place such controversy existed
was in the media, and that when people like him published books on race and intelligence,
they were reviewed by hostile journalists, usually of a left wing inclination, and that these
journalists simply refused to look at the data or face the facts.
This was a truism which has been affirmed for me many tim es before this interview, and
countless times since, and I'm sure that every one of you has had the same experience.
Indeed, it can be said that not only do some controversies exist only in the media, but that
some controversies have been created entirely by the media.
One such media created controversy is the so-called Bermuda Triangle. The plain fact is that
the Bermuda Triangle as such, does not exist. Another and farmore prosaic controversy is
the controversy over the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. W as Kennedy really
shot by Lee Harvey Oswald? Yes. W as Oswald part of a conspiracy? No.
In view of the considerable published literature to the contrary, including the fantasies of Jim
G arrison and Oliver Stone, one might be forgiven for forgetting that sw aid was arrested
within two hours of the shooting, and that his prints were all over the murder weapon.
That being said, the Kennedy assassination was a truly spectacular event, and happening as it
did and when it did, hard on the heels of the so-called Cuban missile crisis, and at the height
of the Cold W ar, there is little wonder that it caused and still causes so much mendacious ink
to flow. The assassination of the most powerful man in the world is one thing, but the murder
ofan ordinary working man is an event which would not usually attract much attention,
unless there was attached to it the suggestion of a m iscarriage of justice. The murder of
Clarke Pearce by Satpal Ram does contain such a suggestion, and as the victim was white,
and the murderer Asian, it didn't take much to inject a considerable element of controversy
into the case.
Years after Ram's conviction, the case began to attract substantial publicity, not just in the
left wing press and to a lesser extent the Asian press, but also in the mainstream media, which
almost invariably reported it as a likely, probable or indeed outrageous miscarriage of
justice. What though is absolutely fascinating is that not only is any such suggestion
ludicrous, but that any journalist, researcher or lawyer who examined the facts critically
could have exposed this outrageous scam at the drop of a hat, but nobody did. Not one.
The first I heard of this case in any meaningful sense was when my colleague Mark Taha gave
me a leaflet he'd picked up at some left wing meeting or bookfair. The leaflet is, frankly,
It reads in part:
"Satpal Ram's nightmare began thirteen years ago, in November 1986. He was the victim of a
brutal racist attack, but due to police racism and incompetence was not seen as the victim and
was charged. This was followed by a farcical trial that resulted in his conviction. Satpal was
given life imprisonment for a crime he did not commit. Over the last thirteen years Satpal has
suffered the brunt of racist abuse, prison brutality and loss of human dignity...Satpal
deserves public support and action to put an end to this injustice. He must be released now."
The leaflet goes on to relate how Ram was dining in an Indian restaurant when six drunken
white people came in, racially abused the staff during the course of the evening, and after he
asked for the music to be turned up, the white men shouted "...we don't need any more of that
black crap, fucking paki-wog music", then one of the white men "smashed a glass on the table
and slashed Satpal across the cheek and on his arm. He then backed Satpal into a corner so
that, with a table and walls behind him, he had nowhere else to go. At this point Satpal was
really in fear of his life. He had already been slashed twice. Satpal had a small knife that he
used in his work at a warehouse, and warned Clarke Pearce not to come any closer. Pearce
lunged at Satpal and in the ensuing scuffle both men were hurt. Satpal left Pearce still
shouting racist abuse and went to get treatment for his injuries.
Clarke Pearce went to hospital but he was very abusive to the medical staff and he pulled out
his drips, saying he did not want to be treated by a woman doctor. He discharged himself and
went home, where he later died.
Here began the appalling treatment of Satpal by the criminal justice system. Satpal was
charged with the murder of Clarke Pearce. His barrister met with him just once, for about 40
minutes before the trial. Although Satpal's actions were clearly in self-defence, the barrister
decided to change the plea to provocation. In court, the racist context of the attack on Satpal
was not fully explained. In fact most of the evidence which was heard came from friends of
Clarke Pearce. Satpal's witnesses were Bengali-speaking waiters with limited English - the
judge said he would interpret their evidence even though he did not speak a word of
The leaflet goes on to explain what a wonderful person Satpal Ram truly is, and how he has
been persecuted and tortured in prison.
Ram's solicitor Gareth Peirce is quoted thus: "This is a forgotten case, it is a litany of
mistakes, of things not done, of evidence not pursued".
It ends with a demand that Ram be released from gaol, an inquiry into the trial which had led
to this palpable miscarriage of justice, and another inquiry into the appalling mistreatment of
Ram in our racist prison system. All very reasonable, you might think, certainly Ram does,
indeed he has absolutely no qualms about either his innocence or his martyrdom, and has
compared himself with the hapless black teenager Stephen Lawrence, a comparison which is
more than a little ironic, as will be demonstrated shortly.
This is, I am sure you will agree lady and gentlemen, a sad, tragic story, and one that I am not
ashamed to say brings tears to my eyes; if you listen closely I swear you can hear the violins
playing in the background. Here is poor Satpal Ram, dining in an Indian restaurant, minding
his own business, when for no reason at all he is attacked by this big brute of a man who
backs him into a corner and slashes his face with a glass. Satpal is in fear of his life, struggles
manfully, somehow manages to draw a small knife, a pen knife that he used in his work,
pleads with his attacker to desist...please stop, don't come any closer, I don't want to hurt
you. Then somehow, almost accidentally he manages to stab his attacker, and both men go to
Heck, this wasn't murder, it was clearly self-defence, accident, even assisted suicide; Clarke
Pearce gets to hospital, and he's having none of it...What's going on here, I've already been
stabbed by a Paki, I'm not gonna be treated by a woman, that would be the final indignity.
And he pulls out his drips, goes home, and dies. Well, it was his own stupid fault, he deserved
it, he was a racist after all.
The foregoing scenario is what might be called the Gospel According to Saint Ram of
Birmingham. It is indeed similar to the Biblical Gospels, although it bears a greater similarity
to Hansel And Gretel, or to Jack And The Beanstalk, because like those famous folk tales, it is
When first I read this leaflet, I realised that it was a bit dodgy, to put it mildly, but just as the
police often frame the guilty, so do campaigners often go overboard in their advocacy of
genuinely worthy causes. So like the intelligent open-minded individual I like to think I am, I
was not prepared to dismiss all its claims on spec. Instead I did a little homework, from three
angles: I decided to listen to the tale of Ram's supporters, to the tale of his victim's family,
and to ferret out the official version.
With that in mind I contacted the Free Satpal Campaign and also wrote to Ram himself.
Then I went along to the Probate Office. I did not expect a man of his age to have made a will,
but I did find the last address of Clarke Pearce, so assuming it to be the family home, and
hoping she still lived there, I wrote to his mother. (3) As by this time, Ram had fought and lost
two appeals against his conviction, I also fished out the law reports. There was a brief one in
the Times relating to his failed November 1995 appeal, and at the Supreme Court Library
there was a full transcript of the judgment of his 1988 appeal, which had been dismissed at
the leave stage, and had therefore not been reported. Having the important dates under my
belt, I went along to the Newspaper Library at Colindale, and fished out the original reports
from the local press.
At some point I heard from the Free Satpal Campaign, in particular from a young woman
named Lesley Naylor, who was very enthusiastic. I never received a reply from Ram, but
Lesley sent me some information by E-mail about this - quote unquote - outrageous
miscarriage of justice. And at some point I also received a phone call from a lady who told me
she was the sister of Clarke Pearce, her elderly mother having passed on my letter to her.
I think it is fair to say that Clarke's sister, Mrs Nadine O'Neill, sounded a very bitter and
cynical woman, especially when I told her I was a journalist of sorts. After all, far more
distinguished and dare I say more reputable journalists than myself have written about this
so-called miscarriage of justice. To take just one example, in the Observer of January 30,
2000, Jay Rayner wrote "The facts of the case are deeply disturbing". The Gospel according
to Saint Ram has also been reported in the Guardian, Socialist Worker - unsurprisingly - and
even Republican News, the mouthpiece of the Provisional IRA.
In September 2001, the Criminal Cases Review Commission declined to refer Ram's
conviction back to the Court of Appeal, which prompted Channel 4 to devote a considerable
chunk of its evening news programme to this non-story, and Ram was heard speaking from
prison whining about this continued injustice.
When he was eventually parolled in June 2002, he said he was angry but not bitter, and
vowed to fight on to clear his name. That hasn't happened, and I'll explain why in due course.
Mr Ram had quite a few high profile campaigners - including the rock band Primal Scream,
and the British- Asian band AsianDubFoundation, whose music I might find appealing under
other circumstances, but the song they recorded Free Satpal Ram, just doesn't do it for me:
"Self-defence is no offence
Had to protect himself from the murderous fools...
A plate to the chest and a glass in his face
An Asian fights back
Can't afford to be meek
With your back against the wall
You can't turn the other cheek...
...Free Satpal Ram!" (4)
Okay, that's enough of fantasy, so what really happened?
The true story of Regina v Ram begins in an Indian restaurant in Birmingham in the small
hours of November 16, 1986. Dining in this restaurant were Clarke Edward Pearce, a 22 year
old postal worker, his fiancee; Clarke's elder sister Mrs Nadine O'Neill and her husband
Eddie, and another couple, Dave Lea and Sharon Badger. Contrary to the claims of Ram's
supporters, this group was already in the restaurant when Ram arrived with his German
girlfriend Evelyn Schneider, and his friend Narvinder Singh Shinji. Ram was twenty years
old and a warehouseman, although sometimes it is claimed that he worked in the restaurant
as a waiter.
Clarke Pearce the arch-racis* had dined in this restaurant many times before, as had Mr and
Mrs O'Neill; that fact alone indicates that his and their behaviour was unlikely to have been
very outrageous. And like a typical white racist, Clarke had also been playing snooker with an
Asian friend a few hours before his untimely death.
It is common ground that Clarke made a remark about the background music that was being
played in the restaurant, something apparently innocuous, to one of the waiters, but like
many innocuous remarks it was the catalyst for an act of insane violence.
Ram, who was sitting at a nearby table, piped up: "...don't you like Paki music?"
Clarke Pearce told him politely or maybe not so politely to mind his own business, or words
to that effect. What happened next is the subject of legitimate debate. It is well known that
when a sudden, traumatic incident occurs, not necessarily a murder, but an accident,
anything sudden and out of the ordinary, and there are many witnesses, there will be just as
many accounts of what actually happened. Judges recognise this, and routinely direct juries
to bear it in mind when deliberating their verdicts. Nadine O'Neill and her husband stress
that the incident happened so quickly, it was literally over in a flash, and when it was, Clarke
was lying on the floor mortally wounded.
Ram's supporters have made much of the fact that his victim - often referred to simply as a
racist - was much the bigger man. Pearce was six feet two and thirteen and a half stone, while
Ram was five foot nine and nine stone. Unfortunately for them, the much touted claim that
Pearce attacked Ram rather than vice versa contains the seeds of its own destruction. There is
no evidence that Ram was the proud owner of a Lonsdale Belt, or that he was proficient in
the martial arts. Leaving that aside, the difference in size and stature between Pearce and
Ram is about the same as between Lennox Lewis and myself. I can't speak for anyone else in
this room, but if Lennox Lewis were to hit me in the face with a glass, I would find it heavy
going to take out a pen knife and stab him in self-defence almost accidentally. But even the
heavyweight champion of the world can be vanquished by an inferior opponent if he is
attacked from behind, and that is what happened in this instance, because Satpal Ram
stabbed Clarke Pearce in the back.
The pathologist's report on the victim states that he suffered, among other injuries: "A
complex double incised wound". He was stabbed at least twice, possibly three times. It is my
belief that Ram actually stabbed him twice, and that the second time he twisted the knife.
Whatever, the incident was over very quickly - it doesn't take long to kill a man - and
immediately afterwards, Schneider dragged Ram into the toilet to clean him up; he had
somehow sustained a small cut to his face. Meanwhile, in the restaurant, pandemonium
As is often the case when someone is mortally wounded, the victim didn't realise just how
badly he was injured; this again is well documented. Clarke sat down, then staggered towards
the door and ended up lying in a pool of blood.
Eddie O'Neill left the restaurant to phone the emergency services - this was in the days before
mobile phones were in widespread use - the restaurant staff were more interested in getting
paid, washing up and going home to bed, and I think it is fair to say that they too were
probably not aware of how badly Clarke was injured.
Then Ram emerged from the toilet and fled the scene of the crime; it appears that nobody
attempted to stop him; that could have been because he still had the knife in his hand. The
knife in question was a flick knife, contrary to Ram's facile assertions that it was a pen knife
that he used at work and might have been carrying legitimately if absent-mindedly. Though
some flick knives can be purely functional, this one was a dagger, a stiletto. But regardless of
its functionality, a flick knife is defined by statute as a weapon which has one use and one use
alone: to inflict injury on the person. In Britain, you cannot buy any sort of flick knife openly.
The point is that a pen knife cannot ordinarily be used as a weapon, not on the spur of the
moment; generally its blade is neither particularly sharp nor long, and it takes two hands to
unfold it. The Court of Appeal recognised this in November 1995 when it said that Ram's
version of events was clearly untrue. I might add that in this judgment the court took what
might be termed a worse case scenario for the Crown; it conceded that Clarke Pearce may
have initiated the violence, and that he may have been holding or even have hit Ram with a
broken glass, and yet it still upheld the murder conviction. So even allowing for this, Ram did
not behave in any sort of reasonable fashion, whether acting professedly in self-defence, or
out of provocation, the defence that was run at the actual trial.
Returning to the scene of the crime, as he left the restaurant with Shinji and Schneider, Ram
couldn't resist a parting shot; turning to Sharon Badger he asked: "Is he dead?" and when
she said "No", he replied in fluent Anglo-Saxon "Well he's fucking gonna be".
His words were prophetic of course, because shortly after being transported to Birmingham
General Hospital, Clarke Edward Pearce was pronounced dead. Ram went to hospital too,
but under his own steam. He turned up at another accident and emergency department,
where he gave a false name, and was initially too drunk and abusive to be treated. Eventually
a doctor managed to insert three stitches into a slightly cut cheek.
These facts, which are readily demonstrable, are in stark contrast to the aforementioned
claims made in the leaflet, which at the risk of boring you I will repeat: Clarke Pearce was
"very abusive to the medical staff and he pulled out his drips, saying he did not want to be
treated by a woman doctor. He discharged himself and went home, where he later died."
When I pointed out this error - quote, unquote - to Lesley Naylor, she was totally unrepentant
and said she didn't know how the claim had got into the leaflet, but assured me that apart
from this mistake - quote unquote again - everything else in the leaflet was true.
Curiously, this so-called mistake found its way into not just this leaflet but into the House of
Commons, where on January 12, 2000, the Labour MP John McDonnell put down an Early
Day Motion which read: "That this House calls for the release of Mr. Saptal Ram who has
now served 13 years in prison for killing in self-defence a racist who, with five accomplices,
attacked Mr Ram, stabbing him twice and who died because he refused medical treatment;
and further calls for an inquiry into the investigation and trial which resulted in this
miscarriage of justice."
Now, the racist has become one of a gang. This is not simply a case of a myth growing with
every retelling, but an example of conscious lies by conscious liars. Eight days later, the Early
Day Motion had been signed by a total of six MPs.
This vile, despicable lie also appeared on the website of the grandly titled National Civil
Rights Movement, which like the aforementioned leaflet published in addition to the written
lies a visual lie, a much touted photograph of Ram with a badly bruised face. (5) The
implication is that this bruising was caused by Clarke Pearce - or by a gang of racists. I have a
copy of this webpage - text and photograph - which I will pass around. It is clear from a
careful scrutiny that the man in this photograph is somewhat older than was Ram at that
time - just short of his twenty-first birthday. Ram actually sustained these injuries in prison;
they appear to have been inflicted by prison officers, but they are not necessarily the result of
wanton brutality. These facial injuries bear a striking resemblance to those inflicted on
Donald Neilson when he was apprehended by the police and public in 1975. By the time he
was arrested, after kidnapping two police officers at gunpoint, Neilson had murdered five
people, so we shouldn't shed too many tears for his black eye and fat lip.
The battered face of Satpal Ram - from the Free Satpal Campaign leaflet - bears a striking
similarity to that of Donald Neilson, the infamous "Black Panther", shortly after his arrest.
The latter photograph is taken from the Murder In The UK website.
The point of course is that a bruised face does not necessarily equate with unreasonable force
or outright brutality, however emotive a staged or misleading photograph may appear.
I wrote to the National Civil Rights Movement to protest about this webpage and to point out
the lies it contains. My letter was ignored. Some time later I wrote to the President of this
organisation, a certain Michael Mansfield QC. I received an acknowledgment dated 8
February, 2002, which contained an assurance that a certain Mr Suresh Grover would look
into the matter. Surprise, surprise, nothing happened, and in fact as recently as last month
when I checked the NCRM's website, this lie was still there, displayed for all the world to see,
and for the uninformed to take at face value, as you will see from the date in the bottom right
hand corner. The fact that this particular webpage has not been updated for many years is no
Returning to November 1986, after a drunken Satpal Ram had had his cheek stitched, he
sobered up fast. Facing a certain life sentence, he decided to flee the country, but was unable
to obtain a passport, so realising the game was up, he went to see his solicitor, John Morgan,
and span him a cock and bull story about poor, victimised Satpal. Morgan is an affable but
not particularly bright man, that being said, he did what any half decent solicitor would have
done, and took his client along to the police station where he listened credulously while Ram
repeated his tale of woe. The police though were not so dumb, thankfully, and charged him
It is my experience that it is the innocent rather than the guilty who have anything to fear
from the criminal justice system in this country. An accused who is obviously guilty of an
heinous crime will be treated extremely fairly, including by the trial judge. The reason for
this is that nobody wants to see the likes of Harold Shipman or Ian Huntley walking the
streets because the Court of Appeal feels obliged to quash their convictions due to some
tiresome procedural irregularity.
Ram is of course not in the same league as the Doctor Deaths or Soham Murderers of this
world, but the case against him was both very serious and extremely compelling, so following
a remand in custody, he was allocated a top flight QC, Douglas Draycott, who among his
other talents was a former Recorder of Shrewsbury.
Unlike the dim-witted John Morgan, Draycott realised his client's story was a tissue of lies,
and that he was facing an uphill struggle at trial, so he convinced him to enter a defence of
provocation rather than one of self-defence. He also advised Ram that entering the witness
box would not be in his best interests. Had he given evidence, Ram would have been what is
termed a vulnerable witness, which can mean many things, but in this case means liar.
However reluctantly, Ram accepted his QC's advice, and unsurprisingly was convicted of
murder in double quick time. Unhappy with the verdict, he launched an appeal, which was
based primarily on Draycott's failing to properly cross-examine one of the prosecution
witnesses, a waiter named Abdul Mozomil, who appears to have been a somewhat nervous
and probably reluctant witness. This fact has been twisted by Ram's small but dedicated
army of liars to the claim that Asian witnesses who could have bolstered the defence case
were not called; what they never mention is the fact that the restaurant manager was also a
prosecution witness, and that the evidence he gave was particularly damning.
Although his first appeal was dismissed, Ram's dedicated liars kept up the pressure until his
case was referred back to the Court of Appeal, where Lord Justice Beldam sent him away
with a flea in his ear.
By this time, 1995, the Internet had come of age, and the Gospel According to Saint Ram had
spread across the globe, but the Internet alone cannot account for the consistent
misreporting. Fortunately though, the Internet cuts both ways, and in April 2001 1 opened a
website dedicated to the facts of this case.
Sometime ago when I spoke with Nadine O'Neill she said a contact of hers who visited the site
regularly thought I was a genius. I like flattery as much as the next man, but unlike Oscar
Wilde I have no genius to declare; I never attended university; I certainly didn't attend
Sheffield University where the imbeciles of the students' union made Ram their Honorary
Ram's high powered supporters include lawyers and MPs, people who are almost by
definition more intelligent, sophisticated and cultured than little old me; I don't feel like a
latter day Isaac Newton standing next to them, but I do at times feel like the young boy who
saw through the Emperor's new clothes. I said once that with the exception of the original
press reports of the murder and the law reports, anything you might have read about this
case was a tissue of lies unless it was written by me. I was very proud of that claim, but in
retrospect it is not a fact of which I should be proud, but one we should all find deeply
When Ram was parolled in June 2002, his supporters arranged a carefully staged press
conference. They didn't invite me, for some strange reason, but any of the journalists who
attended could have let the air out of his tyres with a few select questions such as isn't it true
that you were drunk at the time of the murder, Mr Ram? After you'd stabbed Clarke Pearce,
didn't you express a desire to see him dead? And so on. But these questions remained
When I use the phrase the Gospel According to Saint Ram, this is not mere sarcasm; in order
to exculpate Ram from a murder conviction, one would have to throw out not just the
prosecution evidence, but the evidence of Ram's own witness, Schneider, and the laws of
physics as well. One would then have to permit him to advance his absurd story about
defending himself against a much bigger and heavier attacker with a pen knife and stabbing
him almost accidentally, and one would have to do this without putting a single critical
question to him.
This is not law, it is not philosophy, it is not even mere religion, it is revealed truth. And
"anti-racism", the entire "anti-racisf" movement, is about precisely that. "Anti-racism" is a
revealed truth. That is what we are up against. Blacks have lower IQ than whites - the reason
must be racism; Africa is in chaos, again the reason can only be racism; the wicked
Imperialists sucked the wealth out of the Dark Continent leaving Africans poor, and of course
don't forget slavery.
In 1994, at the height of the Rwandan genocide, the newspaper Socialist Worker wrote: "The
roots of Rwanda's civil war lie in the divisions caused by decades of colonial rule by Western
powers and the deep poverty that the capitalist world system has brought to Africa.
There will be no solution from French troops or the United Nations. They represent
precisely the forces which have pillaged Africa." (6)
So black men are hacking each other to death with machettes, the whites and the rest of the
world are trying frantically to stop the horror, and it's all the fault of the Great White Bigot.
When we have race riots in this country or anywhere else, it's all the fault of racism and
oppression. And when London is bombed by self-styled Islamic fanatics, and over fifty people
are slaughtered, well, it's our fault, we deserved it for our racist invasion of Iraq and for
centuries of Imperialist exploitation and oppression. No amount of reason, evidence, logic or
rational argument will ever convince the true believer otherwise. Revealed truth is exactly
that. Anyone and everyone who challenges any of these views can only be an agent of the
Devil, or in "anti-racisf" parlance, a racist, and therefore not only unworthy of belief but
unworthy even of a hearing. Satpal Ram's supporters as good as said this about his murder
trial - all the witnesses were racists, how can you not believe poor Satpal?
Happily, this story has a fitting ending. After he was parolled, Ram brought an action for
false imprisonment because Home Secretary Jack Straw had blocked his release, a move
which the European Court of Human Rights declared illegal. He was awarded twenty
thousand pounds damages for the extra time he had spent in prison. I would have been
inclined to charge him rent, but before he could receive this money, there was a rather large
deduction to be made. He had been granted Legal Aid to bring a frivolous action against the
prison authorities, and when he withdrew from this, the cost of this action was deducted from
his award, which left him about a thousand pounds. Still not a bad prison discharge grant,
you might think, but before he could collect it, Mr Ram had reverted to type, and his life
licence was revoked following allegations of criminal damage and assault. He remained
unlawfully at large until April of this year when he was arrested in London. During the
course of his arrest he assaulted two police officers.
Unsurprisingly, he has fallen off the radar, and none of his myriad braindead supporters has
mentioned him since. Again, this is a typical "anti-racis*" tactic, batter away at a perceived
injustice of the racist system, and when the truth outs, quietly forget it until the next
campaign comes along.
So how do we fight this sort of revealed truth, this sort of insanity? We can't do it through the
regular media, and we can't do it through the usual legal channels, but nowadays we have the
Internet - which as I said earlier cuts both ways - and we have other outlets. Like this
meeting. We can and must concentrate on those of our people who can be saved, and who
deserve to be saved. And they can be found in the strangest of places.
I wrote a considerable number of letters to the media correcting the wilful lies that have been
spread on behalf of Satpal Ram; all but two of them were ignored, but two were published,
one by the left wing newspaper Tribune, and the other by an Indian on-line newspaper. In the
first I stressed the working class background of Clarke Pearce, and that appears to have gone
The publication of the other letter indicates I think that often non- whites are not quite as
dumb as some people on the so-called far right would have us believe, and do have the
capacity to swallow unpalateable truths. This applies equally in the field of race. Most blacks
and the vast majority of Asians aren't that enamoured with forced race-mixing, as the
Yasmin Alibhai-Browns of this world readily admit. They have no time for so-called gay
rights, and as far as economics goes, they realise what side their bread is buttered; nowadays
as ever it is the air-headed intellectuals who find the appeal of socialism most alluring. Most
non- whites, especially Moslems, realise too that the repressive laws that have been
piggybacked in on the current wave of terror can and will be used against them as much as
the Draconian race laws have been used against the likes of the late John Tyndall.
We can and should work with like-minded individuals and groups from whatever
background who share our goals and ideals, and who oppose the tyranny and brainwashing
of the race-mixers, because although we cannot break their stranglehold of the media, we
have now the means to build a counter-media that is so effective as to render their lies and
nonsense impotent in the face of irrefutable truth.
Notes And References
(1) The introduction was written by me as well as the text; the speech was delivered with a
certain amount of humour, comment and ad libbing but this is a fairly accurate transcript.
(2) There was one lady present, Arlette Baldacchino, who also spoke. Another, also a speaker,
had already left by the time I took the floor, due to a prior appointment.
(3) I can't remember the exact chronology or sequence of my early researches, but I wrote to
the victim's mother in October 2000; a copy of the letter is reproduced on the
satpalramis guilty website.
(4) I found these lyrics on the web; as with many songs, transcripts may vary. The actual song
can be download from many sources by Limewire, for example. I would advise the reader
against this, as the song really is as appalling as the above sample suggests.
(5) To be scrupulously fair, the leaflet states "This photo was taken by police investigating an
assault by prison officers at Nottingham jail", but this photograph has been reproduced
numerous times with the claim or implication that these facial injuries were caused by Clarke
Pearce or by a gang of racists. The NCRM website does not tell the reader the cause of these
facial injuries but leaves this to the imagination.
(6) In its July 23, 1994; most tellingly, the idiot who wrote this article concludes "The only
lasting way out is for Rwandans of all ethnic backgrounds to unite against the foreign troops
and the rich."